But you're mistaking the function of mythos. It doesn't have to be explained: it provides comfortable furniture for the mind and soul rather than objective truth.
In fact, if I understood him correctly, I agree: myth can be used to explain things allegorically, and asking whether the myth is true or false (and what the factual truth of the myth would imply) is not to the point. For example, there is the story of the last strike against the Egyptians. Read literally, that is a horrible and anti-ethical story. But if you know the historical context you will realise that it is about people in a small nation standing firm even as they have that giant empire as neighbour/overlord, ruled by a ruler with very real and visible superpowers as opposed to the invisible JHVH.
However, I don't see mythos serving such a purpose regarding the Big Question in question. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I was infact talking about the creation of the world and the big question about why we are here and so on, so I do think, that Colman understood what I was trying to say.
I think one reason (hehe) for mythological stories is to provide structure and shelter from the nasty world outside. It offers explanation that is comforting in a situation that is cruel.
When a car drove over our cat. I told my wife, that it was a gang of local rabbits that had put money together to bribe a car driver to become the contract killer for our "lovely Siamese" cat. Of course that is a both a rubbish story and not really what happened. But now everytime the cat is mentioned, it was killed by a contract killer out of revenge for the baby-rabbits the cat had killed.
Now that's how myths come about. They serve only limited purpose, and they make light of a situation, give meaning and divert attention. Are they scientific, no, but they provide a cover.
I guess you know that, but I wanted to tell the myth about the cat...
What I was trying to say is that if you're not wired or trained or whatever to use myth in that way it's quite hard to understand or empathise with those who do and possibly harder to retain sufficient humility to not feel superior to those who rely on such crutches.
The question I would always ask, what role does the narrative, the myth, plays in that persons life and in which context is it being told.
Consolation in grief - use any myth you like (even if I could vomit, when I hear some sWEEEEEEET one's)
political motivation - I would be very cautious, where the myth comes from, and what is behind it - conduct a proper deconstruction.
origin myths - again it is the question of why and not how. "how" myths are open invitation to riddicule.
Yes, specifically the last strike against Egypt. In more detail: A literalist has a hard time getting a moral out of the story that God "hardens" the Pharaoh's heart explicitly so that he can use the Pharaoh's lack of action as excuse for a further demonstration of power, which involves a painful punishment of children for something a tyrann ruling their parents did. (In fact, I saw literalists attempting that, and the result is either very disgusting or interprets words and sentences in rather strange ways.) But if you know that none of this happened, and furthermore that when this was written, Egypt was a giant empire that - led by a god-king - used to threaten and ultimately pillage and conquer small Judea, you will see that this story is really about giving self-respect and determination to Judeans (and others in a similar position) - by way of "my God is more powerful than this mighty god-king".
Ah! PeWi, then I took you more seriously than yourself :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As applied to individual conduct, we should be aware that we may reach a stage in our wayward refusal of God's will where He decides to push us further into folly and punish us. This acts as a warning to others and re-states the principle that punishment for sin may occur during our life on earth, not just after it.
I could go on, but I won't. Disgusting? Depends how brainwashed you are.
And "literalists" do interpret everything into unrecognizability.
Hang on, let's do this right. So, what's a theist? Is that similar to your definition of faith?
Fascinating thread, BTW.
